KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE HON JOHN FAHEY AC PRESIDENT WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY TO THE ANZSLA CONFERENCE, MELBOURNE THURSDAY, 16 OCTOBER, 2008

Transcription

1 KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE HON JOHN FAHEY AC PRESIDENT WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY TO THE ANZSLA CONFERENCE, MELBOURNE THURSDAY, 16 OCTOBER, 2008 Thank you for the opportunity to share some time and some thoughts with you this morning on a subject which has occupied a large slice of my life over the past 12 months. It is not hard to recall the reason why I was attracted to a volunteer position with an International organisation that is based in Montreal, which is almost as far as you can get from my home town of Bowral in NSW. I have always been attracted to the concept of fair play. It is the very essence of sport, if not the most fundamental principle governing our lives. Doping is a triple threat: to athlete safety, to sport integrity, and to greater public health. I am old enough to recall some of the sporting events at international level during the seventies and eighties where the build of athletes, both male and female, did not resemble the stereotype for the event and where all of us had suspicions something was happening that had nothing to do with normal training and strength-building exercises. Many of us in those days believed something was radically wrong. I still vividly recall the comparison in physique between Australia s Raelene Boyle and the powerful, muscular East German Renate Stecher as they lined up for the start of the 200 metre Final in Munich in But despite the suspicions and concerns of millions of sports followers around the world, nothing was done by officialdom to address what appeared to be an obvious problem. History has verified that in a number of Eastern European countries systematic doping of sportsmen and women was a reality. When you think of the consequences of cheating in sport, it is not hard to draw the conclusion that sport itself will wither and die unless the cheats are exposed and properly dealt with.

2 This was the basis for the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency. It was founded in the aftermath of the FESTINA cycling case that turned the cycling world upside down in It became apparent to a number of influential people in the Olympic movement, particularly my predecessor, Dick Pound, that the sports movement was facing a crisis. With a number of fellow concerned sports officials they convinced the IOC that to restore confidence and credibility to sport, an independent international agency needed to be imposed on sport. That agency became WADA and Pound described it in the early days as both visionary and missionary. The dual objectives of the world anti-doping programme and the Code are: Firstly - To protect the athlete s fundamental right to participate in doping-free sport and thus promote health, fairness and equality for athletes worldwide. And, To ensure harmonised, co-ordinated and effective anti-doping programmes at the international and national level with regard to detection, deterrence and prevention of doping. It is worth elaborating a little on the anti-doping programmes. Anti-doping programmes seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as the spirit of sport ; it is the essence of Olympism; it is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is characterised by the following values:. Fair play and honesty. Health. Excellence in performance. Character and education. Fun and joy. Teamwork. Dedication and commitment. Respect for rules and laws. Respect for self and other participants. Courage. Community and solidarity Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport. By 2003, at the World Conference in Copenhagen, a Code was adopted and has been accepted by almost 570 organisations, including Olympic Federations, National Sporting

3 Federations, major Games organisers, National Olympic Committees and National Antidoping Agencies. By the 2004 Athens Olympics the IOC made it a condition that all Olympic sports had to adopt the Code to participate in the Games. So, what began as an urgent response to a crisis in sport, quickly evolved into a global network of committed sports and government authorities and individuals working together to protect athlete health and the integrity of sport. In the nineties, governments generally believed that drugs in sport was a problem for sport to deal with. I m pleased to say this attitude no longer exists anywhere. In fact, the real strength of WADA lies in the fact that it is a partnership between sport and public authorities. The Board consists of equal numbers of sports representatives and government representatives and the Chair is alternated for a maximum term of six years between sport and government nominees. The budget is contributed equally between government and the International Olympic Committee. This partnership also highlights the fact that if we are to succeed in the fight for clean sport, then everyone who has a stake in sport its value to the development of young people, and the health of everyone who is inspired by or aspires to athletic achievement has an important role to play in our collective endeavour. In reviewing the implementation phase of the program and the Code, it is worth noting the increasing role of government as each year unfolds. Firstly, for governments the legal basis for the adoption of the Code is underpinned by a UNESCO Convention, necessary to recognise the Code and WADA which as a private Swiss foundation is a non-governmental organisation. I understand the International Convention on Doping in Sport was the fastest Convention adopted by the General Assembly of UNESCO in its history and in the three years or so since its adoption that Code has been ratified by 99 countries out of the 191 members of UNESCO. By UNESCO standards, this is by far the most successful ratification of any Convention within such a short time frame. But the government contribution is far more than the simple ratification of a United Nations endorsed Convention. Throughout the world, governments are legislating, establishing and funding anti-doping organisations. Governments of the world now see performance-enhancing drugs as a danger to public health in the entire community.

4 Most of us tend to focus on the profile of the elite athlete, whether it be at Olympic level or in international non-olympic sports. Government responsibility in all nations, however, is to progress and support healthy and happy lives for all its citizens. To me, performance-enhancing drugs are about the kids in the suburbs, the kids in the schools and gyms today who may be suddenly looking to achieve a better look in their body, or make the sports team. They are just as susceptible to a health problem if they take substances that are not healthy. The ramifications of such experimentation and usage is still not fully known. What we do know is that evidence given at the trial in 1999 of the masterminds behind the systematic doping of young athletes in East Germany during the 70 s and 80 s revealed athletes were exposed to abnormal body changes, life threatening illnesses, irreparable reproductive organ damage and even death. Some 10,000 East German athletes were subjected to these risks and consequences at the elite sports academies. So where has the fight against doping progressed to in 2008? In the early days, the general belief was the more tests undertaken the more likelihood of catching the cheats. Last year almost a quarter of a million tests were undertaken and the number of cheats detected was less than 2 per cent. It is clear to WADA that blanket testing is not necessarily the most effective method. Targeted testing is far more effective, particularly when other intelligence is used in identifying potential cheats. A number of countries, including Australia, have promulgated in their laws and regulation for information to be shared between law enforcement agencies and the antidoping agency. In Australia, the information provided to ASADA by Customs and the Australian Federal Police allows a far greater likelihood of catching cheats than simply random testing. For example, a consignment of prohibited substances in the mail detected by Customs and addressed to a coach suggests to Doping Control Officers that testing of that coach s athletes may be worthwhile, and also allows evidence to be gathered pointing to a nonanalytical violation (ie one not reliant upon urine or blood collection). Advancing the science of anti-doping is a priority activity for WADA. Since 2001, WADA has committed more than US$37million to developing new detection methods

5 and enhancing those methods currently in place. On an annual basis, that s nearly 30 per cent of WADA s budget dedicated to scientific research. The benefits of WADA s investment in scientific research is now evident. More and more substances are being detected, and with greater efficiency than ever before. And thanks to our partnership with the pharmaceutical industry, we are able to detect some substances even before they come on the market. Scientific experts from around the world in a wide range of disciplines from haematology to genetics are helping WADA to anticipate future doping trends. In this way, we are closing in on the cheaters and protecting the rights of clean athletes to safe and fair competition. It is worth highlighting some announcements of recent weeks again. The French anti-doping Agency responsible for testing of the cyclists in the Tour de France are re-examining samples taken and stored since the race and the IOC recently announced they would undertake similar testing of samples taken during the Beijing Olympics. Both have stated they are looking for the latest EPO known as CERA and detected in some cyclists in the Tour-de-France. This safe storage of samples will without doubt lead to the exposure of cheats as each year goes by and the samples are retained for eight years. This is a powerful message to sportsmen and women. They are capable of being exposed years after the event with the development of technology and science. But perhaps the most important objective for the future is the anti-doping education program. From lst January next year, with a revised World Anti-Doping Code adopted unanimously in Madrid last year, anti-doping education is a mandatory component. Those who decide not to dope often do so because of personal convictions based on strong values such as respect, health, honour, dedication and hard work. For us all to win the fight against doping, children need to hear and adopt these universal values, as well as be given the tools to respond in the most healthful way when confronted with the question of doping. Our focus on early, values-based education, will help us to create a strong and stable antidoping culture in which doping is prevented altogether.

6 By educating our athletes at a very early age about the universal values of respect, health, honour, dedication and hard work, in the long term, we can create a strong and stable anti-doping culture. Clean sport promotes responsible behaviour, observance of rules, discipline, respect of self and others, strength of character, tolerance and team spirit all key values to be prized in a contributing member of society. And sport is a microcosm of society values that become entrenched and accepted by society at large will permeate sport and, at the same time, both the positive and negative aspects of sport will come to impact on society. Safeguarding clean sport is one way of working towards safeguarding the moral fabric and wellbeing of society at large. Why does someone who has all the necessary factual information about cheating or doping nonetheless decide to cheat or dope? An athlete who decides not to dope will often make this decision because of personal convictions, which are based on a values system. A strong value system provides reasons to say no (whether to cheating or any form of doping) and stick to that decision. It is through a strong value system that an individual decides whether to engage in risky behaviour or not. Chances are that an athlete competing at a high level has already made the decision about which path he/she will follow: the doping path or the anti-doping path. Therefore, by targeting education programs at young people whose value systems are still being developed and who are beginning to make independent decisions, we are able to guide future elite athletes down the right path, the anti-doping path. It is worth commenting briefly on the Athlete Passport. The Athlete Passport is a revolutionary approach to anti-doping testing that WADA began developing as early as It involves monitoring an athlete s selected biological parameters over a period of time. Variations in the athlete s profile reveal the effects of doping. This allows anti-doping programs to be more sensitive and effective in detecting cheating, but also, more importantly, will lead to an athlete being able to show that he or she is clean.

7 I still want to touch briefly on the World Anti-Doping Code revisions approved by the WADA Foundation Board in Madrid last November which take effect on 1 January In the revised code, two general themes emerge firmness and fairness both targeted at strengthening the fight against doping in sport. The revised Code provides for an increase of sanctions in doping cases involving aggravating circumstances such as being part of a large doping scheme, the athlete having used multiple prohibited substances on multiple occasions, or the athlete engaging in deceptive or obstructing conduct to avoid the detection or adjudication of an anti-doping rule violation. While the current Code allows for a four-year ban for a first serious anti-doping rule violation only in cases of trafficking or administration of a prohibited substance or method, the revised Code thus broadens the spectrum of anti-doping rule violations that can lead to a four-year ban for a first serious doping offence. At the same time, a greater flexibility is introduced as relates to sanctions in general. While this flexibility provides for enhanced sanctions, for example in cases involving aggravating circumstances (see above) lessened sanctions are possible where the athlete can establish that the substance involved was not intended to enhance performance. The revised Code now provides for a new class of specified substances. This class will not include anabolic agents and hormones and some stimulants, but shall be determined annually in the approval of the Prohibited List and for 2009 includes a list of stimulants. This means that in a situation where a sample returns positive for a specified substance the athlete can establish how a specified substance entered his/her body or came into his/her possession and that such specified substance was not intended to enhance sport performance, the sanction may be reduced to a reprimand and no period of ineligibility at a minimum, and a two-year ban at a maximum. Incentives to come forward have also been strengthened. The potential extent of the suspension of an ineligibility period (one half of the otherwise applicable ineligibility period in the current Code) has been enhanced to three-quarters of the otherwise applicable ineligibility period in the revised Code, for substantial assistance to an antidoping organisation, criminal authority or professional disciplinary body which results in the anti-doping organisation discovering or establishing an anti-doping rule violation by another person or which results in a criminal or disciplinary body discovering a criminal offence or the breach of professional rules by another person. In addition, where an athlete or other person voluntarily admits the commission of an anti-doping rule violation prior to receiving notice of a sample collection which could establish an anti-doping rule violation, or in circumstances where no anti-doping organisation is aware that an anti-doping rule violation might have been committed, the

8 period of ineligibility may be reduced, but not below one-half of the period of ineligibility otherwise applicable. The revised Code does not preclude anti-doping organisations from providing, in their own rules, for financial sanctions against cheaters, in addition to the period of ineligibility or other sanction imposed. The revised Code also clarifies WADA s right to appeal directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport a case in which an anti-doping organisation fails to render a decision with respect to whether an anti-doping rule violation was committed within a reasonable deadline, as if the anti-doping organisation had rendered a decision finding no antidoping rule violation. The revised Code formalises the current WADA recommendation that any combination of three missed tests and/or failures by an athlete to provide accurate whereabouts information within an 18 month period as determined by the anti-doping organisations with jurisdiction over the athlete shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation. As relates to the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport, the International Olympic Committee will accept bids for the Olympic Games only from countries where the government has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the UNESCO Convention and where the National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee and National Anti-Doping Organisation are in compliance with the Code. Starting on January 1, 2010, International Federations will do everything possible to award World Championships only to countries where the government has ratified, accepted, approved or acceded to the UNESCO Convention and where the National Olympic Committee, National Paralympic Committee and National Anti-Doping Organisation are in compliance with the Code. So, are we winning the fight against doping in sport? I believe we are. I believe the message is clear and understood by more athletes across all levels than ever before. All of us would be forgiven for believing the proliferation of doping over the years suggests that, for some, the currency placed on winning overrides the value of sport to teach the universal principles of respect, health, honour and dedication. For certain, every sport in every country have their share of fallen heroes whose medals now bear the blemish of deceit through doping. Only last weekend Marion Jones was released from a US Prison, a sentence imposed on her for cheating in sport and then lying about it. But what is the price that we in future generations pay if we were to ignore the cheats?

9 Such attitudes towards sport unfortunately translate into lessons for our youth. Through these messages we are teaching our youngsters what is acceptable behaviour in modern society and in sport. Are we teaching youth that cheating is a violation of others rights? Or is the lesson rather that it matters only if you get caught? It comes down to a simple, age-old truism; it is not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game. In life. In sport. In the Little Leagues and the Olympics alike. That is why it is so important to fight against the scourge of doping and send the message that doping is cheating, and cheating is simply wrong. It violates the rights of clean athletes and it destroys the dignity and the health of those who dope. We combat doping because we believe in the universal principles of truth, fairness, health, hard work and respect. And we believe it is our responsibility to preserve these values for our youth and the generations to come. We may never reach the finishing line in this fight, but I have no doubt we are closer to that finishing line than we were last year and we will be even closer next year.